Apache Ignite Developers - Legacy Mail Archive

moving to geronimo JCache jar

Classic

List

Threaded

26 messages Options

dmagda

Re: moving to geronimo JCache jar

> On Feb 1, 2017, at 3:08 AM, Alexander Fedotov <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Igniters, please advise on it.
>
> Also, does anyone know whether it's allowable by Apache License, Version
> 2.0 to create a custom build and provide it via
> Nexus, Artifactory, you name it. Currently, both the license and POM at
> JSR107 GitHub are conformant, so it's just a matter
> of a build being provided.
>
> On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 1:52 PM, Anton Vinogradov <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> Guys,
>>
>> I've checked review and I don't like replacement "JSR 107 .... " with
>> "Apache 2.0" even given they are equals.
>> We should provide licenses way it is, even in case it so sophisticated :)
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Alexander Fedotov <
>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> PR updated
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 10:42 PM, Alexander Fedotov <
>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Denis, it is my mistake to leave the header unchanged.
>>>> It should be fixed because from now on the generation of license notes
>>> for
>>>> dependencies under Apache Software License is enabled according to the
>>>> point 3 in JIRA <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3793>.
>>>> I'll fix it and your notes in Upsource and update the PR.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 10:30 PM, Denis Magda <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Alexander, provided review notes in the Upsource.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, I’m still a bit concerned about the content of
>>>>> ignite-core-licenses.txt (see attached). The file says that it
>> contains
>>>>> licenses different from the Apache Software license but in fact lists
>>>>> shmem, Intellij IDEA annotations and JSR 107 all of which are
>> available
>>>>> under Apache 2.0.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why is this so? Can someone explain? Dmitriy, probable you know the
>>>>> reason.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> —
>>>>> Denis
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jan 30, 2017, at 12:19 PM, Denis Magda <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Alexander, thanks!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I’ll review it in the nearest couple of days.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> —
>>>>>> Denis
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jan 30, 2017, at 5:10 AM, Alexander Fedotov <
>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Created Upsource review for the subject:
>>>>>>> http://reviews.ignite.apache.org/ignite/review/IGNT-CR-82
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 11:52 AM, Alexander Fedotov <
>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3793 is completed.
>>>>>>>> Kindly take a look at the corresponding PR
>>>>> https://github.com/apache/i
>>>>>>>> gnite/pull/1475 .
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 8:04 PM, Denis Magda <[hidden email]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We need to replace content of ignite-core-licenses.txt file which
>>> is
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> following at the moment
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> // ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> ------
>>>>>>>>> // List of ignite-core module's dependencies provided as a part
>> of
>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>> distribution
>>>>>>>>> // which licenses differ from Apache Software License.
>>>>>>>>> // ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> ------
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ============================================================
>>>>>>>>> ==================
>>>>>>>>> For JSR107 API and SPI (https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec)
>>>>>>>>> javax.cache:cache-api:jar:1.0.0
>>>>>>>>> ============================================================
>>>>>>>>> ==================
>>>>>>>>> This product bundles JSR107 API and SPI which is available under
>> a:
>>>>>>>>> JSR-000107 JCACHE 2.9 Public Review - Updated Specification
>>> License.
>>>>> For
>>>>>>>>> details, see https://raw.github.com/jsr107/
>>>>> jsr107spec/master/LICENSE.txt.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Updated this ticket description: https://issues.apache.org/jira
>>>>>>>>> /browse/IGNITE-3793
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> —
>>>>>>>>> Denis
>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 24, 2017, at 8:24 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Awesome, you are right. I just checked and the license is indeed
>>>>> Apache
>>>>>>>>>> 2.0. Is there anything we need to do at all right now?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 8:17 PM, Valentin Kulichenko <
>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This change was incorporated in this ticket:
>>> https://issues.apache
>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>>> org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3793. We can't do it before 2.0 for
>>>>>>>>> compatibility
>>>>>>>>>>> reasons.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> However, my point is that they changed the license to Apache
>> 2.0,
>>>>> so
>>>>>>>>> I'm
>>>>>>>>>>> not sure that licensing issue still exists.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 7:04 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Any reason why we need to wait for 2.0? Sorry if this has
>>> already
>>>>> been
>>>>>>>>>>>> discussed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 7:02 PM, Denis Magda <
>> [hidden email]
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, we planned to do that in 2.0. Val, the ticket is closed
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2949 <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2949>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do we need to reopen it making sure that geronimo jar is
>> added
>>> to
>>>>>>>>> 2.0?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> —
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Denis
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 24, 2017, at 6:36 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We absolutely need to upgrade to the geronimo jcache library
>>> in
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> next
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 3:45 PM, Valentin Kulichenko <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guys,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I noticed that the JCache license was updated to Apache 2.0
>>>>> several
>>>>>>>>>>>>> months
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ago [1]. However, there was no release with the new license
>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> 1.0.0
>>>>>>>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has the old license name in the POM file [2] (the link is
>>>>> pointing
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new one though).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is this enough from legal standpoint? Do we still need to
>>> move
>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Geronimo?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://github.com/jsr107/jsr1
>>>>> 07spec/blob/master/LICENSE.txt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] http://mvnrepository.com/artif
>>>>> act/javax.cache/cache-api/1.0.0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 5:43 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would say that we are OK with alpha for now, as there is
>>> no
>>>>> real
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference between 1.0-alpha and 1.0. We can switch to 1.0
>>>>>>>>> whenever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> geronimo project updates the JAR.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> D.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 5:10 PM, Valentin Kulichenko <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Folks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I tried to switch to Geronimo and it works fine for me.
>> Are
>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>> going
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wait for version 1.0, or we're OK with alpha?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 7:37 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can someone check if the Geronimo JCache jar is the same
>>> as
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JSR107?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.apache.geronimo.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specs/geronimo-jcache_1.0_spec
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We should try switching to the Geronimo JAR starting
>> next
>>>>>>>>>>> release,
>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> licensed under Apache 2.0.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> D.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>>>> Alexander.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>>> Alexander.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Kind regards,
>>>> Alexander.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Kind regards,
>>> Alexander.
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Kind regards,
> Alexander.

Anton Vinogradov

Re: moving to geronimo JCache jar

Val,

cache-api lib license at maven now looks like

JSR-000107 JCACHE 2.9 Public Review - Updated Specification License
> https://raw.github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/master/LICENSE.txt

and I see replacement at pull-request related to this thread

#if ( $license.name.contains("JSR-000107 JCACHE 2.9 Public Review") )
#set( $licenseName = "Apache License, Version 2.0" )

and I don't like it :)

Denis,

As you can see https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/blob/master/pom.xml has
version 1.*1*.0-SNAPSHOT and it's just not released at maven.
Can we ask cache-api team to release it?

Anyways, I see no issues here, we just have to keep current license

JSR-000107 JCACHE 2.9 Public Review - Updated Specification License
> https://raw.github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/master/LICENSE.txt

and wait for cache-api 1.*1*.0 release.

On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 11:03 PM, Denis Magda <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Guys,
>
> JSR 107 spec as well as the reference implementation were updated in all
> the places:
> https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/blob/master/LICENSE.txt <
> https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/blob/master/LICENSE.txt>
> https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/blob/master/pom.xml <
> https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/blob/master/pom.xml>
> https://github.com/jsr107/RI/blob/master/LICENSE.txt <
> https://github.com/jsr107/RI/blob/master/LICENSE.txt>
> https://github.com/jsr107/RI/blob/master/pom.xml <
> https://github.com/jsr107/RI/blob/master/pom.xml>
>
> Even if you go to Maven
> https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/javax.cache/cache-api/1.0.0 <
> https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/javax.cache/cache-api/1.0.0>
>
> and scroll down to Licenses section then you will see the following
>
> License URL
> JSR-000107 JCACHE 2.9 Public Review - Updated Specification License
> https://raw.github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/master/LICENSE.txt <
> https://raw.github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/master/LICENSE.txt>
>
> But if anyone clicks on the link he will see that, in fact, Maven shows
> outdated information.
>
> So, it’s Maven’s issue not ours. It might be fixed soon. We as a product
> that uses JSR 107 are free to claim in our license files that this JSR
> already conforms to Apache 2.0.
>
> —
> Denis
>
> > On Feb 1, 2017, at 3:08 AM, Alexander Fedotov <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > Igniters, please advise on it.
> >
> > Also, does anyone know whether it's allowable by Apache License, Version
> > 2.0 to create a custom build and provide it via
> > Nexus, Artifactory, you name it. Currently, both the license and POM at
> > JSR107 GitHub are conformant, so it's just a matter
> > of a build being provided.
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 1:52 PM, Anton Vinogradov <
> [hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Guys,
> >>
> >> I've checked review and I don't like replacement "JSR 107 .... " with
> >> "Apache 2.0" even given they are equals.
> >> We should provide licenses way it is, even in case it so sophisticated
> :)
> >>
> >> On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Alexander Fedotov <
> >> [hidden email]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> PR updated
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 10:42 PM, Alexander Fedotov <
> >>> [hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Denis, it is my mistake to leave the header unchanged.
> >>>> It should be fixed because from now on the generation of license notes
> >>> for
> >>>> dependencies under Apache Software License is enabled according to the
> >>>> point 3 in JIRA <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3793>.
> >>>> I'll fix it and your notes in Upsource and update the PR.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 10:30 PM, Denis Magda <[hidden email]>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Alexander, provided review notes in the Upsource.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> However, I’m still a bit concerned about the content of
> >>>>> ignite-core-licenses.txt (see attached). The file says that it
> >> contains
> >>>>> licenses different from the Apache Software license but in fact lists
> >>>>> shmem, Intellij IDEA annotations and JSR 107 all of which are
> >> available
> >>>>> under Apache 2.0.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Why is this so? Can someone explain? Dmitriy, probable you know the
> >>>>> reason.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> —
> >>>>> Denis
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Jan 30, 2017, at 12:19 PM, Denis Magda <[hidden email]>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Alexander, thanks!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I’ll review it in the nearest couple of days.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> —
> >>>>>> Denis
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Jan 30, 2017, at 5:10 AM, Alexander Fedotov <
> >>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Created Upsource review for the subject:
> >>>>>>> http://reviews.ignite.apache.org/ignite/review/IGNT-CR-82
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 11:52 AM, Alexander Fedotov <
> >>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Hi all,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3793 is completed.
> >>>>>>>> Kindly take a look at the corresponding PR
> >>>>> https://github.com/apache/i
> >>>>>>>> gnite/pull/1475 .
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 8:04 PM, Denis Magda <[hidden email]>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> We need to replace content of ignite-core-licenses.txt file which
> >>> is
> >>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>> following at the moment
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> // ------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>> ------
> >>>>>>>>> // List of ignite-core module's dependencies provided as a part
> >> of
> >>>>> this
> >>>>>>>>> distribution
> >>>>>>>>> // which licenses differ from Apache Software License.
> >>>>>>>>> // ------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>> ------
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> ============================================================
> >>>>>>>>> ==================
> >>>>>>>>> For JSR107 API and SPI (https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec)
> >>>>>>>>> javax.cache:cache-api:jar:1.0.0
> >>>>>>>>> ============================================================
> >>>>>>>>> ==================
> >>>>>>>>> This product bundles JSR107 API and SPI which is available under
> >> a:
> >>>>>>>>> JSR-000107 JCACHE 2.9 Public Review - Updated Specification
> >>> License.
> >>>>> For
> >>>>>>>>> details, see https://raw.github.com/jsr107/
> >>>>> jsr107spec/master/LICENSE.txt.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Updated this ticket description: https://issues.apache.org/jira
> >>>>>>>>> /browse/IGNITE-3793
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> —
> >>>>>>>>> Denis
> >>>>>>>>>> On Jan 24, 2017, at 8:24 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> >>>>> [hidden email]>
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Awesome, you are right. I just checked and the license is indeed
> >>>>> Apache
> >>>>>>>>>> 2.0. Is there anything we need to do at all right now?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 8:17 PM, Valentin Kulichenko <
> >>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> This change was incorporated in this ticket:
> >>> https://issues.apache
> >>>>> .
> >>>>>>>>>>> org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3793. We can't do it before 2.0 for
> >>>>>>>>> compatibility
> >>>>>>>>>>> reasons.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> However, my point is that they changed the license to Apache
> >> 2.0,
> >>>>> so
> >>>>>>>>> I'm
> >>>>>>>>>>> not sure that licensing issue still exists.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> -Val
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 7:04 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> >>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Any reason why we need to wait for 2.0? Sorry if this has
> >>> already
> >>>>> been
> >>>>>>>>>>>> discussed.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 7:02 PM, Denis Magda <
> >> [hidden email]
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, we planned to do that in 2.0. Val, the ticket is closed
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2949 <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2949>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Do we need to reopen it making sure that geronimo jar is
> >> added
> >>> to
> >>>>>>>>> 2.0?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> —
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Denis
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 24, 2017, at 6:36 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> >>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We absolutely need to upgrade to the geronimo jcache library
> >>> in
> >>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> next
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> release.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 3:45 PM, Valentin Kulichenko <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guys,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I noticed that the JCache license was updated to Apache 2.0
> >>>>> several
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> months
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ago [1]. However, there was no release with the new license
> >>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>> 1.0.0
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> still
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has the old license name in the POM file [2] (the link is
> >>>>> pointing
> >>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new one though).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is this enough from legal standpoint? Do we still need to
> >>> move
> >>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Geronimo?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://github.com/jsr107/jsr1
> >>>>> 07spec/blob/master/LICENSE.txt
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] http://mvnrepository.com/artif
> >>>>> act/javax.cache/cache-api/1.0.0
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 5:43 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would say that we are OK with alpha for now, as there is
> >>> no
> >>>>> real
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference between 1.0-alpha and 1.0. We can switch to 1.0
> >>>>>>>>> whenever
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> geronimo project updates the JAR.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> D.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 5:10 PM, Valentin Kulichenko <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Folks,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I tried to switch to Geronimo and it works fine for me.
> >> Are
> >>>>> we
> >>>>>>>>>>> going
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wait for version 1.0, or we're OK with alpha?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 7:37 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can someone check if the Geronimo JCache jar is the same
> >>> as
> >>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JSR107?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.apache.geronimo.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specs/geronimo-jcache_1.0_spec
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We should try switching to the Geronimo JAR starting
> >> next
> >>>>>>>>>>> release,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> as
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> licensed under Apache 2.0.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> D.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>> Kind regards,
> >>>>>>>> Alexander.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>> Kind regards,
> >>>>>>> Alexander.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Kind regards,
> >>>> Alexander.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Kind regards,
> >>> Alexander.
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Kind regards,
> > Alexander.
>
>

dmagda

Re: moving to geronimo JCache jar

Well, there is some minor work left to be done before pushing JSR 107 to Maven:
https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/issues/333 <https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/issues/333>
However, it’s a matter of time since Oracle has already approved the new license.

When JSR 107 1.1.0 gets released in Maven we will be required to update the version in our dependencies and release a new version of Apache Ignite. This is why I don’t see any issue if leave this workaround for 1.9 release

#if ( $license.name.contains("JSR-000107 JCACHE 2.9 Public Review") )
#set( $licenseName = "Apache License, Version 2.0” )

and remove it at the time when we will be upgrading to JSR 107 1.1.0.

Is there any other concern rather than code beauty?

—
Denis

> On Feb 2, 2017, at 1:17 AM, Anton Vinogradov <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Denis,
>
> As you can see https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/blob/master/pom.xml <https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/blob/master/pom.xml> has
> version 1.*1*.0-SNAPSHOT and it's just not released at maven.
> Can we ask cache-api team to release it?
>
> Anyways, I see no issues here, we just have to keep current license
>
> JSR-000107 JCACHE 2.9 Public Review - Updated Specification License
>> https://raw.github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/master/LICENSE.txt <https://raw.github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/master/LICENSE.txt>
>
>
> and wait for cache-api 1.*1*.0 release.

dmagda

Re: moving to geronimo JCache jar

Got more clarifications from the folks that driving the license upgrade. We need to wait until the process fully finishes:
https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/issues/333#issuecomment-277106702 <https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/issues/333#issuecomment-277106702>

Considering this let’s merge the current changes reverting this one

> #if ( $license.name.contains("JSR-000107 JCACHE 2.9 Public Review") )
> #set( $licenseName = "Apache License, Version 2.0” )

and close the ticket.

I opened a new one for JCache license upgrade tracking:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4649 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4649>

—
Denis

> On Feb 2, 2017, at 11:12 AM, Denis Magda <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Well, there is some minor work left to be done before pushing JSR 107 to Maven:
> https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/issues/333 <https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/issues/333>
> However, it’s a matter of time since Oracle has already approved the new license.
>
> When JSR 107 1.1.0 gets released in Maven we will be required to update the version in our dependencies and release a new version of Apache Ignite. This is why I don’t see any issue if leave this workaround for 1.9 release
>
> #if ( $license.name.contains("JSR-000107 JCACHE 2.9 Public Review") )
> #set( $licenseName = "Apache License, Version 2.0” )
>
> and remove it at the time when we will be upgrading to JSR 107 1.1.0.
>
> Is there any other concern rather than code beauty?
>
> —
> Denis
>
>> On Feb 2, 2017, at 1:17 AM, Anton Vinogradov <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Denis,
>>
>> As you can see https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/blob/master/pom.xml <https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/blob/master/pom.xml> has
>> version 1.*1*.0-SNAPSHOT and it's just not released at maven.
>> Can we ask cache-api team to release it?
>>
>> Anyways, I see no issues here, we just have to keep current license
>>
>> JSR-000107 JCACHE 2.9 Public Review - Updated Specification License
>>> https://raw.github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/master/LICENSE.txt <https://raw.github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/master/LICENSE.txt>
>>
>>
>> and wait for cache-api 1.*1*.0 release.
>

afedotov

Re: moving to geronimo JCache jar

So, I suppose we should revert JSR107 license fixes in LICENSE_FABRIC and
LICENSE_HADOOP too.
Will update PR shortly.

On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 3:41 AM, Denis Magda <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Got more clarifications from the folks that driving the license upgrade.
> We need to wait until the process fully finishes:
> https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/issues/333#issuecomment-277106702 <
> https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/issues/333#issuecomment-277106702>
>
> Considering this let’s merge the current changes reverting this one
>
> > #if ( $license.name.contains("JSR-000107 JCACHE 2.9 Public Review") )
> > #set( $licenseName = "Apache License, Version 2.0” )
>
> and close the ticket.
>
> I opened a new one for JCache license upgrade tracking:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4649 <
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4649>
>
> —
> Denis
>
> > On Feb 2, 2017, at 11:12 AM, Denis Magda <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > Well, there is some minor work left to be done before pushing JSR 107 to
> Maven:
> > https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/issues/333 <
> https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/issues/333>
> > However, it’s a matter of time since Oracle has already approved the new
> license.
> >
> > When JSR 107 1.1.0 gets released in Maven we will be required to update
> the version in our dependencies and release a new version of Apache Ignite.
> This is why I don’t see any issue if leave this workaround for 1.9 release
> >
> > #if ( $license.name.contains("JSR-000107 JCACHE 2.9 Public Review") )
> > #set( $licenseName = "Apache License, Version 2.0” )
> >
> > and remove it at the time when we will be upgrading to JSR 107 1.1.0.
> >
> > Is there any other concern rather than code beauty?
> >
> > —
> > Denis
> >
> >> On Feb 2, 2017, at 1:17 AM, Anton Vinogradov <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Denis,
> >>
> >> As you can see https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/blob/master/pom.xml
> <https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/blob/master/pom.xml> has
> >> version 1.*1*.0-SNAPSHOT and it's just not released at maven.
> >> Can we ask cache-api team to release it?
> >>
> >> Anyways, I see no issues here, we just have to keep current license
> >>
> >> JSR-000107 JCACHE 2.9 Public Review - Updated Specification License
> >>> https://raw.github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/master/LICENSE.txt <
> https://raw.github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/master/LICENSE.txt>
> >>
> >>
> >> and wait for cache-api 1.*1*.0 release.
> >
>
>

--
Kind regards,
Alexander.

Kind regards,
Alexander

dmagda

Re: moving to geronimo JCache jar

Alexandr, thanks! I’ve merged your changes to the master branch.

—
Denis

> On Feb 3, 2017, at 12:49 AM, Alexander Fedotov <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> So, I suppose we should revert JSR107 license fixes in LICENSE_FABRIC and
> LICENSE_HADOOP too.
> Will update PR shortly.
>
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 3:41 AM, Denis Magda <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Got more clarifications from the folks that driving the license upgrade.
>> We need to wait until the process fully finishes:
>> https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/issues/333#issuecomment-277106702 <
>> https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/issues/333#issuecomment-277106702>
>>
>> Considering this let’s merge the current changes reverting this one
>>
>>> #if ( $license.name.contains("JSR-000107 JCACHE 2.9 Public Review") )
>>> #set( $licenseName = "Apache License, Version 2.0” )
>>
>> and close the ticket.
>>
>> I opened a new one for JCache license upgrade tracking:
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4649 <
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4649>
>>
>> —
>> Denis
>>
>>> On Feb 2, 2017, at 11:12 AM, Denis Magda <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Well, there is some minor work left to be done before pushing JSR 107 to
>> Maven:
>>> https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/issues/333 <
>> https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/issues/333>
>>> However, it’s a matter of time since Oracle has already approved the new
>> license.
>>>
>>> When JSR 107 1.1.0 gets released in Maven we will be required to update
>> the version in our dependencies and release a new version of Apache Ignite.
>> This is why I don’t see any issue if leave this workaround for 1.9 release
>>>
>>> #if ( $license.name.contains("JSR-000107 JCACHE 2.9 Public Review") )
>>> #set( $licenseName = "Apache License, Version 2.0” )
>>>
>>> and remove it at the time when we will be upgrading to JSR 107 1.1.0.
>>>
>>> Is there any other concern rather than code beauty?
>>>
>>> —
>>> Denis
>>>
>>>> On Feb 2, 2017, at 1:17 AM, Anton Vinogradov <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Denis,
>>>>
>>>> As you can see https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/blob/master/pom.xml
>> <https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/blob/master/pom.xml> has
>>>> version 1.*1*.0-SNAPSHOT and it's just not released at maven.
>>>> Can we ask cache-api team to release it?
>>>>
>>>> Anyways, I see no issues here, we just have to keep current license
>>>>
>>>> JSR-000107 JCACHE 2.9 Public Review - Updated Specification License
>>>>> https://raw.github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/master/LICENSE.txt <
>> https://raw.github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/master/LICENSE.txt>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> and wait for cache-api 1.*1*.0 release.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Kind regards,
> Alexander.